Interim Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: The Reader and Ahlmad of this court are on leave today.
51 Ct. Cases / 2295/2025 SATISH KUMAR GARG Vs. NARESH
KUMAR GARG /0 (Prashad Nagar)
06.05.2026.
Present : Sh. Deepak, Ld. APP for the State.
ORDER ON APPLICATION U/S 175(3) BNSS.
1) The complainant has moved an application u/s 175(3) BNSS for registration
of FIR against accused for commission of offence u/s 126(2)/329(2)/62/351(2)/3(5)
BNS.
2) Brief facts of the application as taken out from the complainant are as
follows:
That the complainant is the absolute owner of the Shop bearing No.
5514/74, Regharpura, Karol Bagh, Delhi-110005, which is measuring 9 ft. x 14 ft. That
the complainant is using the said shop for commercial purposes wherein the complainant
does the business of trading. That in the month of October, 1961 Shri Ram Nath
Choudhary (husband of one Smt. Anaro Devi) had taken financial help of Rs.2,000/-
from the father namely Sh. Om Prakash of the complainant for the purpose of
construction as he was not having the funds to raise the construction. He promised to
return the said amount within one year but the said amount was not returned by the said
Ram Nath Choudhary, within the said period even on repeated requests made by the
father namely Sh, Om Prakash of the complainant. That on 31.07.1965 when Sh. Ram
Nath Choudhary alongwith his wife Smt. Anaro Devi and children had gone out of Delhi
and the said premises was lying locked, then Sh. Om Prakash (father of complainant)
took the possession of the said shop and since 31.07.1965 the father of complainant was
in possession of the said shop. That the father of complainant namely Om Prakash
-- 1 of 5 --
The Reader and Ahlmad of this court are on leave today.
25.05.2013 and 02.02.2010 a was expired on Settlement was arrived in between the
complainant and the accused and it was settled that the House No. 58/8, Omkar Nagar-
B, Trinagar, New Delhi-110035 went in the share of the accused No.1 Naresh Kuamr
Garg, while the abovesaid shop came in the share of the complainant. That since
02.02.2010 the complainant is in absolute possession of the abovesaid shop. The
complainant earlier was running the business at the abovesaid property by the name and
style of M/s. S.K. Trading and still is running the business at the abovesaid property by
the name and style of M/s. Jai Mata Traders. That one Veena Gupta filed a Suit/Eviction
Petition bearing No.RC/ARC-527/2022 (E) 149/2022 titeld as Veena Gupta Vs. Satish
Gupta, Under Section 14(1)(a)(e) R/w Section 25-B of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
against the complainant for eviction claiming herself to be the owenr of the abovesaid
property and for her bonafide needs. That the complainant appeared before the Hon'ble
Court of Ld. ARC (Central Distt.), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and filed an application for
seeking leave to defend. In the said application for leave to defend the complainant
stated that the said Veena Gupta is not the owner of the said Shop. Ultimately the
application for leave to defend of the complainant herein has been allowed by the
Hon'ble Court of Ld. ARC (Central Distt.), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi vide Order dated
26.07.2024. The copy of the said order dated 26.07.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Court of
Ms. Tista Shah, Ld. ARC (Central Dsitt.), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi is annexed herewith.
That it is pertinent to mention here that after passing the said order dated 26.07.2024 the
said case was fixed for the evidence of the said Veena Gupta for 03.10.2024 but the said
Veena Gupta intend leading the evidence withdraw her petition vide order dated
03.10.2024. The copy of the said Order dated 03.10.2024 is annexed herewith. That it is
pertinent to mention here that even as per the petition filed by the said Veena Gupta
against the complainant, she has not even claimed any other person as her tenant in the
abovesaid shop which clearly proved that it is only the complainant who is the owner
and in absolute possession of the said property since 02.02.2010. That on 30.09.2025
-- 2 of 5 --
The Reader and Ahlmad of this court are on leave today.
when the complainant was going from his abovesaid shop to his house, the abovesaid all
the accused persons came and restrained the way of the complainant. They were trying
to trespass forcibly into the shop of the complainant with the intention to grab the same.
That when the complainant at the same time i.e. on 30.09.2026 raised the objections
against the illegal acts and ulterior motives of the abovesaid acused person, they
threatened to kill the complainant and hsi family members. That the complainant made
the complainant to the police of P.S. Prasad Nagar, Delhi and also to the DCP (Central),
Netaji Subhash Marg, Darya Ganj, New Delhi besides the Commissioner of Police,
PHQ, Jai Singh Road, New Delhi on 04.10.2025 by way of Speed Post but no action has
so far been taken by any of the police officials, while the threats to kill the complainant
and his family members and also to trespass and grab the abovesaid shop of the
complainant.
3) Action taken report from concerned police station was called for. It is
reported by SI Gaurav Bamola that the matter is civil in nature and that complainant has
filed a suit for permanent injunction as well.
4) Heard the submissions of Ld. counsel for complainant. Record perused.
5) Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in M/s Skipper Beverages P. Ltd. Vs State
2002 Crl. L. J. NOC 333 (Delhi) has illustrated that the powers under Section 156 (3) Cr.
PC can be exercised by a Magistrate. It has been observed that :
“Section 156 empowers Magistrate to direct police to register case
and initiate investigation but his power had to be exercised
judiciously not in mechanical manner. Those cases, where
allegations are not very serious and complainant himself in
-- 3 of 5 --
The Reader and Ahlmad of this court are on leave today.
possession of evidence to prove allegation, there should be no need
to pass order under Section 156 (3) Cr. PC. But, cases where
Magistrate is of view that nature of collect, and produce evidence
before court, and interest of justice demand that police should step
into to help complainant, police assistance can be taken. Thus,
where allegation of theft of cheque and forgoing of typing out
certain portion therein, could be proved by oral evidence and by
summoning original cheque from banker and leading required
evidence respectively, then there was no such evidence which
complainant could be unable to collect on his own. As such,
declining request to issue direction to police under Section 156 (3)
Cr. PC would be justified.”
6) In another case titled Gulab Chand Upadhyay Vs State of UP and others,
2002 Cri. L. J. 2807 Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, in para 24 observed that where
accused with his name and address are known to the complainant, the witness of the
evidence are also known to him and it is not a case where any other material evidence is
required to be collected and can be preserved, then it is not a case where any
‘investigation was required by the police of launching a successful prosecution’.
7) In the present case, the identity of the proposed accused is duly established
and known to the complainant. All the evidence is at the disposal of the complainant.
There is no need for police investigation in this case. Further if any fact is required to be
unearthed, the same517104
may be inquired into by the Court U/s 225 BNSS and for that inquiry the assistance of
police may be taken. As such no investigation by the police is required.
-- 4 of 5 --
The Reader and Ahlmad of this court are on leave today.
8) Accordingly, considering the case law and facts and circumstances, the
application U/s 175(3) BNSS of the complainant is dismissed.
9) List for further proceedings on 22.07.2026.
(Karanbir Singh)
JMFC-02, Central District
Tis Hazari Courts/06.05.2026.
-- 5 of 5 --